AMD EPYC 9965 "Turin Dense" Delivers Better Performance/Power Efficiency vs. AmpereOne 192-Core ARM CPU
While different architectures, when it came to compiling Node.js the EPYC 9965 was much faster than AmpereOne at the same core count. Albeit in the case of the EPYC 9965 is able to benefit from SMT for 384 threads per socket.
The EPYC 9965 was consuming 257 Watts on average compared to AmpereOne at 196 Watts, but if looking at the joules per run the AmpereOne A192-32X required 36.6k Joules per Node.js build compared to 32.3k Joules with the EPYC 9965.
It was a similar story with compiling Gem5 being much faster on the EPYC 9965. The AmpereOne A192-32X did have a 148 Watt average compared to 163 Watts with the Turin Dense CPU, but again on a Joules per run basis the new EPYC CPU was more power efficient.
In the case of CI/CD build farms, some may specifically go after AmpereOne for AArch64 coverage if not wanting to cross-compile. But these tests show that the EPYC 9965 was much faster than AmpereOne while also being more power efficient. It would have been a different story if AmpereOne reached GA last year well before AMD Turin and Intel Sierra Forest.
On a performance-per-dollar basis just for the CPUs, AmpereOne easily comes out ahead if the A192-32X list pricing is accurate.
The EPYC 9965 processors easily led in performance and performance-per-Watt for John The Ripper.
While some like to criticize x86_64 for power efficiency, with Intel Sierra Forest and AMD Bergamo / Turin Dense is increasing proof that the ISA isn't inherently power inefficient or the like. EPYC 9965 is shooting well ahead of the AmpereOne A192-32X in this 192-core showdown.